Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

Allegation

Whilst registered as an Operating Department Practitioner, and during thecourse of your employment at University College London Hospitals NHSFoundation Trust ("the Trust"):

1. On or around 6 January 2017 you took from the Trust, for your ownpersonal use:

a) two vials of Rocuronium and / or

b) two vials of Prupofol

2. The matters described at paragraph 1 were dishonest;

3. The matters described at paragraphs 1-2 constitute misconduct;

4. By reason of you misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary matters

Proof of Service

1.The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent in a letter, by first class post on 18 April 2019, to the address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register. The Notice of Hearing was also sent to the Registrant by email, on the same date. The Registrant confirmed that she had received the letter.

2.The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended).

Application for hearing to be in private

3.Mr Ferson invited the Panel to conduct all of the hearing in private, submitting that conducting the hearing in private would protect the Registrant’s right to a private life.

4.Mr Ferson referred the Panel to the detailed medical information within the bundle and submitted that the information was inextricably linked to the facts of the case such that it would be impractical for the Panel to hear parts of the hearing in public.

5.The Registrant did not oppose the application. She submitted that she would prefer that the hearing was conducted in private.

6.The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, the documents provided to it and the submissions of the parties.

7.The Panel carefully considered the public interest grounds in the case being heard in public. However, the Panel was satisfied, given the medical evidence and other personal information before it, that there was a need to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life, that the circumstances of her private life were inextricably linked to the circumstances of the case, and therefore ordered that all of the hearing should be conducted in private.

Application to for witness RK to give evidence via telephone

8.Mr Ferson made an application for witness RK to give evidence via the telephone. He submitted that RK had made the hearings officer aware that she was too unwell to attend in person. He submitted that she had consented to give oral evidence by telephone.

9.The Registrant did not object to RK giving evidence by telephone.

10.The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

11.The Panel noted that the Registrant did not object to RK giving her evidence by telephone. The Panel was of the view that it was in the interests of justice, expediency and efficiency to permit RK to give her evidence via telephone. Accordingly, the Panel permitted Mr Ferson to call RK, by telephone, to give her evidence.

Order

That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Miss Shiwangi Bagoan with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of one year from the date this order comes into effect.